Latest news with #Schimel
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million-dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws in giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million-dollar checks to those who signed the petition. The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million-dollar checks to two people, both of whom the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk over his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million-dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mandell, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mandell said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or, 'He can't possibly get away with this,'' Mandell said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and I think people across the political spectrum's intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
11-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC, and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc.. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million dollar checks to those who signed the petition. and The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million dollar checks to two different people, both of which the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said that the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million dollars on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford still won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk for his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mendel, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mendel said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or 'he can't possibly get away with this,'' Mendel said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and, I think people across the political spectrums intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.'
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Voters - Who Are They? What Do They Want?
Trump won Wisconsin last November, albeit narrowly by 29,000 votes out of over 3.3 million cast. As the consummate swing state, his Wisconsin win exemplifies his surprise triumph in the national popular vote as well. For context, recall that Republicans lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections before Trump/Vance 2024. But in Wisconsin, Trump improved his margin materially among the states large Catholic population, did much better with women vs. prior runs, and soared among young men. Those same trends held true nationwide. But just months later, in the Wisconsin state supreme court race on April 1 of this year, the liberal candidate Susan Crawford easily prevailed against former conservative candidate Brad Schimel. Despite a radical record as an activist and judge, Crawford sailed to a +10% margin victory, beating Schimel by nearly a quarter million votes. Trump endorsed Schimel, who seemed to run a competent campaign that was well financed, with record millions in donations pouring into the race on both sides. So, what explains this divergence between last fall and this spring in the Badger State? Some issues are peculiar to Wisconsin, to be sure. For instance, in a heavily unionized state, Democrat get-out-the-vote operations matter massively in an off-year election without a marquee name to motivate right-leaning voters. But two larger issues loom, ones that we in the America First movement must acknowledge and manage going forward, especially into the key 2026 the GOP transforms into the party of patriotic populist nationalism, a coalition of working-class voters, across racial and ethnic lines. This coalition is a winning one when properly activated, and even attracts legions of young people. For instance, Trump won 18-year-olds nationally. Among young men 18-29 years old, Trump went from 41% of that vote in 2020 to 56% in 2024. Among Hispanic young men, Trump moved an astounding +38% on margin. These incredible gains point to the potential for a populist Right political domination for decades to … there is a problem. These voters are generally not politically obsessed, and they are difficult to turn out, especially without Donald John Trump on the ballot. So, given these circumstances, how do we motivate these voters and win elections? To find answers, my League of American Workers advocacy organization commissioned an extensive poll of over 3,300 Wisconsin voters. Respected pollster TIPP Insights conducted the survey and asked penetrating questions of the Trump voters in the heartland. Among the key findings are these three characteristics of Trump voters: Its Not a Personality Cult. Yes, Trump has indeed earned a committed ride-or-die base. But, the overwhelming majority of Trump voters approach politics pragmatically. In spite of media narrative, these voters do not worship Trump, but instead make a sensible choice to determine which politician will benefit their own lives, and the success of our nation. For instance, among Trump voters, only a fractional 7% responded "I only care about Trump." In contrast, over 70% of those voters who switch down ballot reported that they either "do not trust" other Republicans, or that those candidates are "part of the establishment." The GOP Brand Is Tarnished. Trump voters convey material disdain for the party. These voters totally dismiss the Democratic Party as awful, to be sure. But neither do they trust Republicans broadly. In this survey, 43% of Trump voters admit they do not vote for other Republicans. Nationalism and Authenticity Matter Most. Unlike non-Trump voters, this electorate does not place economic issues at the top of their priority list. Instead, they emphasize "America First" policies combined with a genuineness they can trust. For instance, when queried in a "max diff" exercise, where the respondent must pick between two competing goals, twice as many select "puts America first" vs. "trust his economic policies." The top three priorities in the max diff analysis are: "America First," followed by "strong on immigration," and then "delivers on promises." So, given these traits, how does the GOP convert on this opportunity and activate this coalition? In turn, how does our movement leverage the party? The primary consideration in this new age with little partisan attachment: Candidate selection becomes paramount. More than the right ideas, more than funding - this broad, energetic, restless coalition simply demands very different nominees compared to Republican norms. To get specific, on policies, the candidates must be aligned on America First. Meaning, they believe in sovereignty to their core - and will fight like rabid dogs to secure Americas borders and get dangerous illegals out of our country. Other policies are negotiable. Aside from that strong stance, they must be believable. Trump voters are understandably ticked off, because they recognize that the ruling class of this country has disparaged and disregarded them for decades. These deplorables know that a crooked system has cheated them, and they have almost zero automatic trust for a candidate, even with an "R" after their name. Admittedly, pre-judging candidate authenticity can be tough. But, as a rule, defer to outsiders. Find impressive people who have not held office, or at least not for long. Search for achievers outside of politics to have some measure of name recognition. Authenticity + patriotic populism is the winning formula. Only then will we capture this volatile but promising moment in American politics. Lets get to work. Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, and a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
After record-breaking spending in April, Wis. Democracy Campaign says voters want reform
A Wisconsin Democracy Campaign poll finds nearly 90% of voters say they're concerned about the influence of money in politics. (Getty Images) After an April election that broke national records for spending, Wisconsin voters are eager to see measures to rein in money in politics, a campaign finance watchdog group leader said Monday. 'It is an environment where billionaires are running the show and everyday people like you and me are here watching,' said Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. 'We will continue to see unprecedented spending unless something changes from our Legislature and our lawmakers.' The numbers that the organization posted Monday haven't yet pierced the predicted $100 million threshold in the Supreme Court race, but final data won't be compiled until the end of June. The Democracy Campaign focuses on the money actually spent, as distinct from what was raised or what was budgeted, said research director Sam DeForest-Davis. As of Monday morning, the campaign for Judge Susan Crawford, who won the Court race, spent $22 million compared with the campaign for Judge Brad Schimel, which spent just under $10 million. While the campaigns spent a combined $32 million, independent groups supporting the campaigns spent a combined $51 million. Schimel was the larger beneficiary of independent spending, with $33.5 million in his favor or opposing Crawford. Independent spending that favored Crawford or opposed Schimel totaled $18 million. In the race for state superintendent, the two candidates' campaigns — for incumbent Jill Underly, who won, and for her challenger, Brittany Kinser — were just about even in their spending, with $1.3 million for Underly and $1.1 million for Kinser. Independent spending, however, heavily favored Underly at $1.9 million. Independent spending for Kinser totaled $160,000. Research director DeForest-Davis said the organization will have a final report in July on spending data, including spending on issue ads that don't include explicit messages to vote for or against a candidate but are slanted to clearly favor one or the other. That information won't be available until the end of June. Along with the campaign finance data released Monday, the Democracy Campaign released results from an opinion poll of Wisconsin voters on campaign finance. The survey, of 861 voters conducted from Feb. 11-14, found that 88% of participants were 'very concerned' or 'extremely concerned' about the influence of money in politics. 'I have a hard time thinking of an issue that has this kind of universal feedback across the state,' Ramos said. 'After seeing the gaudy amount of money that was spent in this Supreme Court race, I can only imagine that this number and this percentage are going to increase.' Nearly as many — more than 85% — said 'no' when asked if individuals or groups should be able to spend 'unlimited amounts of money' to support political campaigns. And 83% said there should be limits on how much campaigns can spend. Nearly 74% said they would support a ban on campaign spending 'by outside political action committees (PACs) that are not directly affiliated with a candidate's campaign.' About 53% ranked spending by 'dark money PACS who do not have to disclose their donors' as their greatest concern where the influence of money on politics is concerned. Another question showed that so far publicly financed campaigns haven't gained support from a majority of voters. Almost 47% said they would 'strongly' or 'somewhat' support such a proposal. Just under 30% said they would 'somewhat' or 'strongly' oppose public financing, while 23.5% said they were unsure. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Few Takeaways From Elon Musk's Utter Humiliation in Wisconsin
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. For the past several months, pick-me gazillionaire Elon Musk has been firing tens of thousands of federal workers in the most cartoonishly evil ways possible—gutting things like NIH cancer research and HIV prevention programs while bragging about feeding entire agencies of dedicated civil servants 'into the wood chipper.' The backlash has already started to hit him where it hurts, as 'Tesla Takedown' protests have turned his once edgy cars into pricey pariah boxes for toxic losers. But Tuesday's Wisconsin state Supreme Court election might be Musk's most delicious comeuppance yet. Musk made the race his personal mission, saying that it 'will be important for the future of civilization' and spending $22 million in support of Republican Brad Schimel, turning it into the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history. That Schimel got trounced by Democrat Susan Crawford tells us a few things about the limits of money in American politics. Neither Musk nor anyone in his orbit nor in the state GOP seemed to understand, before Tuesday night, that his presence in the race was having the opposite of its intended effect. 'I thought he was going to be an asset for this race,' the Outagamie County GOP chair told Politico in an instantly memeable quote. 'Maybe I have blinders on.' She wasn't alone. Unfortunately for Wisconsin Republicans and their plot to stay in power forever through aggressive court-approved gerrymandering, Musk did not just quietly write checks to his favorite political action committees, like the most effective billionaire reactionaries have been doing since the Supreme Court unleashed Citizens United on the country. Instead, he decided to make himself the face of the Schimel campaign, planting himself in the Badger State, headlining rallies, and writing million-dollar checks to well-connected Republican supporters—a seeming display of flagrant vote-buying that the state attorney general challenged (though, as in Pennsylvania last year, Musk found a way to carry out the stunt without it being deemed an illegal lottery). Musk has probably received undue credit for Republicans' stunning but extremely narrow victories in the November 2024 elections, and Donald Trump is reportedly already reconsidering his role in the administration. But one of the first and most obvious lessons to draw from Musk's Wisconsin fiasco is that there are real, tangible limits to the influence that money can buy in American politics. The GOP's victory last fall happened, after all, despite the party's being outspent by the Harris campaign and its affiliated super PACs. It's not even clear that the hundreds of millions of dollars that Musk himself poured into the election were a net positive for the GOP at all, since the party tended to do worse in states where Trump mounted a visible campaign than where he and his movement were mostly background noise and could more credibly pretend they weren't going to do all the horrific things they are now doing. You also don't need multiple regression models to see that the big spender has lost two of the four post–Citizens United presidential elections. That doesn't make the orgiastic frenzy of millionaire and billionaire spending in those elections good for the country or really anything but an embarrassing stain on American democracy. While political science research suggests that campaign spending can drive turnout in generally lower-profile judicial races, Musk's face-plant in Wisconsin suggests that, happily, there are real limits to what can be accomplished by throwing stacks of cash at random Midwestern Republicans. It also helped that Crawford was not exactly a pauper and got only marginally outspent in a race that saw over $107 million in expenditures. According to political scientists John Sides, Daron Shaw, and Matt Grossman in Campaigns and Elections, in local races, 'a better-funded candidate can totally eclipse a relatively impoverished opponent,' and that just isn't what happened here. One obvious caveat, though, is that the current Democratic coalition (a group that includes high-propensity college-educated voters as a key bloc) seems to have a turnout advantage in midterm, off-year, and special elections that it has had trouble replicating in presidential elections over the past decade. In this case, at least, the outcome was not attributable to differential turnout, which was high across the board. Given that his approval ratings are even worse than Trump's, Musk was always going to be a net negative in this contest. But he didn't help his case with his over-the-top rhetoric and actions. On X, his wild-eyed gibberish about, for example, how only the far-right Alternative for Germany party can save the country is signal-boosted by his algorithms and lauded mindlessly by his army of clout-chasing reply guys. Massively overpaying to acquire Twitter has given him a platform that reliably amplifies his incessant lies and feeds his porcelain ego. In the real world, though, Musk unintentionally highlighted his own absurdity to people who may have previously paid him little mind. His extravagant efforts to boost turnout forced people who aren't terminally online to ask themselves why the world's richest dude wants Brad Schimel to be on the state Supreme Court so badly he's willing to risk legal action. One negative result hardly spells the end of Elon Musk's threat to American democracy, nor should it give Democrats false confidence that they have somehow cracked the MAGA code and can bank on retaking the House in 2026. Republicans did, after all, manage to get Wisconsin voters to enshrine into the state constitution a requirement to show a photo ID when voting, a referendum that Musk has bragged about. But Musk's flop in Wisconsin should serve as a reminder of two things. First and most important, the MAGA-era GOP is not some unstoppable godlike force, despite recent capitulations from craven bootlickers at law firms like Paul Weiss and universities like Columbia. The nation's political thermostat is not broken, and Susan Crawford didn't need to join the pile-on against trans folks or clap while Trump's goon squads disappear immigrants who are here legally into Salvadoran gulags in order to win this election. Political gravity did a lot of the work here, and it is still very real. The second is that the utility of both Musk's infinite bullshit machine and his towering piles of money is not limitless. Even Trump now seems to realize that Musk is dragging his administration down with him. And while it isn't happening as quickly as many Democrats would hope, given the administration's constant and shocking abrogations of the constitutional order, many Americans seem to be slowly realizing that the government they unwisely elected in November isn't invested in their well-being after all. There are some things even Elon Musk can't buy his way out of.
